First Direct and Natwest closing bank accounts for political reasons inc being gender critical

[Snorkers]

Apprently First Direct have closed the account of the Wings over Scotland founder for his beliefs (He's Gender Critical), and Coutts, owned by Natwest, closed Nigel Farage's account.
Whatever you think of Nigel Farage he is entitled to a bank account.

This is really worrying.

I bank with First Direct. I am gender critical. Do I need to hide my beliefs to keep my bank account? Will tey stop me getting access to my money?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12249755/Nigel-Farage-claims-three-loved-ones-bank-accounts-closed-Brexit.html

He was regularly reported on. It's clear in that report that earlier reports had been done. This was a committee that made wrote this report and made recommendations. And then it was sent in to another committee for them to OK the decision. It wasn't just a random employee who didn't like NF. They trawled his SM, his twitter account, newspaper articles, online articles and reproduced them all in full.
I find it hard to believe that no one on the board, including the woman who actually developed the equality and diversity drives and initiatives, knew how the bank was operating? It's not as if this is the first time we've heard of people protesting that their accounts have been closed.

NF is making another SAR to try to find out who briefed the BBC.

He wonders if it might be Alison Rose because according to NF she dined with the BBC finance reporter the evening before the BBC initially reported that NF no longer met the financial requirements of Coutts.

Meanwhile thousands of ordinary people are making SARs because natwest also closed their accounts.

It could get very very messy.

But how would a SAR cover that casual chatting? She's not going to go to the office next day and write it down. But, yeah, I hope he causes them maximum inconvenience.

Yes, NF needs to get the info from the BBC because the reporter must have had to back up the claim before it was broadcast so there must be something in writing at that end.

I agree, I think a SAR with natwest won't show anything re giving info to the BBC. A SAR for the BBC might be more productive

However just the fact that the BBC is being given personal information about coutts clients is very damaging to the bank.

GDPR breach, surely. Messy AND expensive if so.

The BBC would correctly dismiss a SAR out of hand:

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/right-of-access/what-other-exemptions-are-there/#exemption8

The way to do this is to get Dame Alison Rose to give testimony in front of a Select Committee. If she is the source then she could lie but that would be on her.

I find it hard to believe that no one on the board, including the woman who actually developed the equality and diversity drives and initiatives, knew how the bank was operating?

If you are so consumed with dislike about the person you want to be rid of (ad think that because you're following your guidelines it's OK), perhaps not. I mean, we've seen on this thread people and others people saying it's OK it's Farage and reporting stuff that the bank has said that they've actually retracted; because they detest the man, without thinking through the wider implications of the bank's action. It's a very poor reflection on the judgement of the board and the bank as a whole, but then being abysmally stupid never stopped people getting to positions of power.

Every day is a school day I wasn't aware of the exceptions

Evidence at a Select Committee could be very interesting

When Farage speaks, whether people like or hate what he has to say, they listen. He has a broad platform.

I have to wonder how many other people they've done this to who haven't.

Yorkshire Building Society are currently gaining a similar reputation.

Before jumping into conclusions you need to read the facts first:

Farage did not qualify to bank with Coutts. If you look on companies house you can see how much money he generates and it does not meet the criteria to bank with Coutts.
He raised his complaint and Coutts have gone back to him with the standard response used in banking "I am sorry you feel this way , what we can offer you is an account with NatWest.
There's a lot of noise over nothing, the truth is that he just did not generate enough cashflow.

He raised his complaint and Coutts have gone back to him with the standard response used in banking "I am sorry you feel this way , what we can offer you is an account with NatWest.

Then why hasn’t the CEO stuck to this story?

The truth is you haven't read the dossier. 🙄

This thread is fascinating in the parade of posters turning up convinced that because all of this is about is Farage=bad man that means they have to remain ignorant of the facts.

nauticant I find it depressing that it is happening on the "Feminism Chat" board. It is a mirror image of the wilfully ignorant, bigoted comments under any article in the right wing press about any left-wing politician.

The truth is that you don't understand the fact that even if Coutts suspected that he has links to Russia that information would not be disclosed to nf as it's tipping off which is illegal. Seriously why is a person like him having so much air time. NatWest has literally offered him an alternative option, he has been left without an account. I work in the industry and all the documents released by Coutts are aligned with what is notet on client relationship management tools, Coutts knew very well what they're doing. People are making assumptions left and right without actually understanding reputational risk and governance. The bank itself has very strict qualifying criteria.
The internet is full of conspiracy theories.
If you check on FCA you'll be able to educate yourself further on regulation and risk the banks must comply with.

What have have his company profits got to do with anything? To have a Coutts account you need either 1million in loans or 3 million in investments. Business cash flow would only be relevant if you were applying for a business loan and the bank was assessing your ability to repay. They may also take an interest in where your money is coming from to make sure it's legal.

These details have been widely published so it's ironic you think the rest will of us need to read the facts when you either haven't bothered or have no idea what they mean.

Has not been left*

Banks are heavily regulated , they do risk rating and they operate as a business with an aim to generate profit. FCA sets guidelines for them to follow which some involve looking after the vulnerable, making banking accessible, managing risk etc.
Free speech and hate speech are not the same thing.

He has himself said in a video that his business account was with Coutts. Coutts has clearly said his mortgage is payed therefore if you check companies house you'll be able to see how much money he makes which leads to the fact that he no longer qualifies to bank with Coutts. Obviously they're not going to share what funds he had exactly but that together with him being known to promote hate speech has been sufficient to offboard him . Coutts has apologised to him for feeling the way he feels but has not offered him an account. That is a clear indication that they've done nothing wrong.
Go read a book.

If the bank is confident that they've complied with the law, why lie? Why say we could use the reasoning that the mortgage is paid off and exit him that way rather than saying it's because his views dont align with ours?
Why say it's about him not having enough money when they have thousands of accounts without enough money?
If it's just about the level of money, when they offered him an account at NatWest, why didn't they offer him a business account?
Coutts said multiple times in that dossier that Farage hadn't broken the law and nothing said by others about Russian money was evidenced in his accounts. So it's nothing to do with Coutts not telling Farage it's about Russian money. Coutts are literally saying there is nothing to substantiate any claims that he's receiving Russian money.
You know what why don't you go educate yourself and actually read the dossier instead of stating untrue facts.

You seen very confused in what you're saying. Are you saying he's been exited over money? If so, why aren't they closing other accounts at the same level?
Or are you saying they exited him over hate speech? Who decides what hate speech is? Is it saying a woman can't become a man? Or is it that you don't agree with net zero? Because that's one of their categories, too, that they expect people to agree with them over.
Everyone understands closing accounts over illegality but it's just not right to have an anonymous group of people deciding whether people are "good enough " for their bank. This upright bank has an arm in Qatari for goodness sake.

Coutts will not be disclosing it publicly if they have concerns regarding where the funds came from . That would be tipping off which is illegal.
What you see in the media is information obtained from CRM data.

Banks do not store AML information where it can be requested by the account holders. If your bank think you're money laundering and they close your account, you can submit a subject access request but it will not include reports of suspicious activity as that would be tipping you off.

The bank is confident with their decision for the flvery simple fact that they have not asked him to go bank with them again.

FCA has very clear guidelines on what is permissable and what is not.

Ultimately he is throwing a tantrum because he no longer has the benefits that come with being a private client.
Coutts probably wanted him gone for a while, he repaid his mortgage, doesn't qualify any further and they took the opportunity to get rid off him.

As much as you may not like it banks are actual businesses and they have the right to turn you away for nonessential products such as private banking.

NatWest has offered him the essential option which he is entitled to which is a normal bank account.

Read page 10 of the published docs. Explanation is very clear. Coutts have done nothing wrong. If anything this is free positive publicity for attracting the rights kinds of clients that are aligned with their values.

People standing up for NF are mind-blowing.

The average bank account holder has nothing to worry about. That doesn't mean people have the right to go to thei bank and make racists/xenophobic/anti LGBTQ+ remarks.
Those types of hate speech are guaranteed to have your accounts closed.

You should read page 10 carefully